You have substantive and procedural grounds of appeal IMO.

Pl post the enclosures/attachments.

Please click this link to access the document, for some reason attachment option does not work for me.

https://limewire.com/d/MHoiJ#TcwWobfgpH

Would appreciate some guidance on the TSRGD point in particular.  Please give me a steer on the strongest points to take forward, in order of priority, for the next stage?

Redbridge have sent notice of rejection, which I think a few of you expected. Their position is essentially that the vehicle was stopped on a red route, the double red lines clearly prohibit stopping, and that my representations did not identify any specific defect in the road markings or upright sign or provide evidence of TSRGD non-compliance.

Having compared my reps with the Notice of Rejection, my concern is that Redbridge have largely answered a different case. They rely on the fact that the vehicle stopped on double red lines and treat the rest as mitigation, but my main representation was that the sign was turned away from my direction of travel, I pulled in only to establish the restriction, and left at the first safe opportunity once I understood it. They also say I did not identify a specific TSRGD defect, but do not identify the TSRGD provisions or authorisation supporting the arrangement themselves.

Would appreciate views on filing appeal. Could someone kindly help in drafting an appeal?

https://limewire.com/d/MHoiJ#TcwWobfgpH  (Notice of Rejection)

Here are my reps, please advise if anything needs amending:

I challenge this PCN because the restriction was not adequately conveyed from my direction of approach, and the council’s own CCTV shows that I stopped only long enough to ascertain the restriction and left at the first safe opportunity.

1. The sign was not readable from my direction of approach

The relevant upright sign was twisted away from approaching traffic. Its wording, permitted activities and operating times. I could not establish whether the marked area permitted passenger collection without moving closer. I therefore pulled into the area briefly for the sole purpose of reading the restriction. Once close enough to understand the sign, I immediately realised that the exception operating at 18:53 did not apply to my vehicle.

2. I left at the earliest safe opportunity.  The council’s complete CCTV footage supports my account and explains the entire duration of the stop. It shows that my vehicle was initially at the front of stationary traffic at the lights. After I pulled into the area, seven vehicles, including a bus, passed on my right. A pedestrian also walked the full length of my vehicle immediately alongside the driver’s side in the carriageway. It would have been unsafe to move while the pedestrian was directly beside the vehicle or to pull into passing traffic without a safe gap. I drove away as soon as the pedestrian had cleared and it was safe to rejoin the carriageway. No passenger boarded or alighted. I did not remain after understanding the restriction, and the footage does not show deliberate waiting or an attempt to collect a passenger.

3. The stop resulted from an inadequately presented restriction. I did not stop to take advantage of the bay. I stopped because the sign’s orientation prevented the restriction from being read from my direction of travel.  Having established what the sign said, I left as soon as reasonably and safely possible. The council should consider the full CCTV sequence objectively rather than treating the mere fact that the vehicle became stationary as conclusive. The footage shows a brief stop to ascertain an unreadable restriction, followed by departure at the first safe opportunity.

4. Sign and road-marking compliance.  There are also legitimate concerns about whether the exact combination of signs and markings complies with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The upright sign combines:

goods-vehicle loading between 6 am and 6 pm; and
taxis between 6 pm and 6 am.

The bay is bounded by white broken markings while double red lines continue alongside it.

I require the council to identify the precise TSRGD provisions and permitted variants relied upon for:

the complete upright sign;
the combination of goods-vehicle loading and taxi restrictions within the same sign assembly;
the white broken bay boundary;
the double red lines alongside the bay; and
the complete arrangement of signs and markings at this location.

If the arrangement is not prescribed, the council should provide any applicable special authorisation issued by the Secretary of State. I am not asserting merely that white markings cannot appear on a red route. The issue is whether this particular sign and marking arrangement lawfully and clearly conveys the restrictions created by the relevant Traffic Management Order.

The council’s own evidence shows that the sign was not readable from my direction of approach;
I pulled in briefly to establish what restriction applied;
no passenger boarded or alighted;
passing traffic and a pedestrian prevented an immediate safe departure; and
I left at the first safe opportunity after understanding the sign.

Accordingly, the alleged contravention did not occur and the PCN should be cancelled. Should the council reject these representations, please provide:

a reasoned explanation of how the sign’s orientation adequately conveyed the restriction from my direction of approach;
the complete, unedited CCTV footage;
the applicable Traffic Management Order and all relevant schedules and plans;
the precise TSRGD provisions and permitted variants relied upon;
any Secretary of State authorisation;
the sign’s inspection and maintenance records; and
any contemporaneous photographs showing the orientation of the sign.

Please also confirm that the council has considered whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the PCN separately from its consideration of the statutory ground.

This seems to be an up-and-coming PCN ‘hot spot’. I believe the signs are double-sided at this location. Nevertheless, IMO the signs do not comply with the TSRGD because they incorporate loading and taxis is the same panel. The road markings are also questionable. For example, IMO the white broken line should be red (TSRGD: S7-4-6 and S7-5-5).

Do you think those points are strong enough to form a proper appeal, rather than just a request for discretion? Also, would you suggest challenging on both the signage and road markings, with reference to TSRGD S7-4-6 and S7-5-5?

Thanks, that’s helpful and fair. I agree this location often turns on adjudicator judgment rather than a clear-cut defect.

On the footage, I accept it may look like I’m “charging past” the signs, but that’s precisely the issue I’m raising. After the left into Handforth Road and the right turn into Clements Road, the restriction appears after the bend, leaving no safe opportunity to stop or divert once it becomes clear. My case isn’t that I ignored the signs, but that the layout gives insufficient reaction time at the decision point.

In 2240478986 (Santosh Kumari) the adjudicator accepted that, despite advance signage, the carriageway legend misleadingly suggested that entering the road itself led into the restriction, creating ambiguity as to where it actually began. That same layout issue appears unchanged in my photos.

I appreciate views on whether, in light of Santosh Kumari (2240478986) and similar cases with positive and negative outcomes, this still crosses the threshold from mitigation into a viable signage-adequacy argument?

Hi, yes there is one for Skeffington Road and another one for Caulfield Road - video preview shows for the 1st only, please scroll through and there is link for 2nd video https://vimeo.com/1100571153?share=copy#t=0 (Caulfield Road)

I'm trying to make representations and this is the option I get where I must select any ONE of the listed reasons which seems to contradict the PCN.

https://imgur.com/Fy1WEBc